Who Was Buried at Stonehenge?', Antiquity., 83 (319)

Home , Aubrey holes, Heel Stone, Mike Parker Pearson, Posthole, Q and R Holes, Sarsen

Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO: 24 June 2011 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Parker Pearson, M. and Chamberlain, A. and Jay, M. and Marshall, P. and Pollard, J. and Richards, C. and Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. and Welham, K. (2009) 'Who was buried at Stonehenge?', Antiquity., 83 (319). pp. 23-39. Further information on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098069

Publisher's copyright statement:

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 hi Tilley Chris ee Marshall Peter xaain tSoeeg yRcadAkno aermie vial o td,being study, later for from available remains remained cremated have few Atkinson A Richard 7. by Hole Stonehenge Aubrey were at excavated they excavations plaque, previously inscribed from the an excavated by into deposits accompanied cremation tipped and the sandbags of four 58 into the estimated packed William since Stonehenge; 1935, an In remains, reburied time. these the Newall at curate R.S. Britain to in and appreciated Young prepared Aubrey not was was the bone museum and cremated of no ditch value the that scientific from seems (mostly It monument 2). the Figure of Holes; half western the from millennium cremations third more the a in Stonehenge norm, at the the buried were on three people BC. burials or 150 cal total based two cremation be of 240, The single-individual might remains estimate as If 1995). the conservative 121). contain estimated McKinley each over 2001: been almost 2; deposits (Pitts and cremation has and across persons the fragments Stonehenge of 1 Excavations cremated many at (Figures we that many when. buried assumption bone yet burials, individuals and human cremation and of there unburnt 52 BC number yielded of buried cal have fragments was millennium area 40 who third its about the of half of little cemetery very largest know Britain’s is Stonehenge Stonehenge at remains human The circle a within the cemetery as Wales.Keywords: founded from cremation possibly been a family, have leading as the therefore a BC may that of monument cal propose place excavations, famous burial millennium authors most twentieth-century third Britain’s the bluestones. early possible, the upright now the of of is in study that life new dating started radiocarbon this site precise In the us. with surprise together to continues Stonehenge Pearson Parker Mike Stonehenge? at buried was Who eevd 4Arl20;Acpe:2 ue20;Rvsd 7Jn 2008 June 27 Revised: 2008; June 22 Accepted: 2008; April 24 Received: ANTIQUITY uighswr tSoeeg ewe 99ad12,WlimHwe excavated Hawley William 1926, and 1919 between Stonehenge at work his During eateto rhelg nhoooy nvriyo rso,Bitl UK Bristol, Bristol, of University Anthropology, & Archaeology UK 7AF, of S11 Department Sheffield Road, UK Onslow Durham, 25 Durham, Chronologies, m.parker-pearson@sheffield.ac.uk) of (Email: University UK Archaeology, Sheffield, of Sheffield, Department of University Archaeology, of Department colo osrainSine,Uiest fBunmuh oreot,UK Bournemouth, Bournemouth, of University Sciences, UK Conservation London, of London, UK School Manchester, College Manchester, University of Anthropology, University of Cultures, Department and Histories Arts, of School 3(09:23–39 (2009): 83 rti,Noihc ekr Stonehenge Beaker, Neolithic, Britain, 6 aeWelham Kate & 3 ohPollard Josh , 1 nrwChamberlain Andrew , 4 oi Richards Colin , 7 23 1 ,MandyJay 5 uinThomas Julian , 2 , 5 ,

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge?

Figure 1. The location of Stonehenge (see also Figure 9). curated in Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum. Only three cremations have been subjected to osteological analysis (McKinley 1995: 456–8) and only one has had associated charcoal radiocarbon-dated, too imprecisely to be of use (C-602; 3798 −+ 275 BP; 2890–2220 cal BC [95% probability]). Previous researchers have assigned the cremation burials to the end of Stonehenge’s timber phase (Phase 2; see Table 1) and the beginning of its bluestone and sarsen phase (Phase 3), estimated as around the twenty-seventh to twenty-sixth centuries cal BC (Cleal et al. 1995: 154, 163). Some of the unburnt human bones from Hawley’s excavations have been lost (Pitts 2001: 116-8), but a number of these have also been kept safely in Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum’s collections. The only prehistoric inhumation from Stonehenge, an arrow-pierced adult male known as the Stonehenge Archer, was buried within the ditch (Cutting 61; Evans 1984) and dates to the Beaker period (2340–2195 cal BC [95% probability]). In 2007 the Stonehenge Riverside Project and Beaker People Project jointly embarked upon a dating programme of these surviving remains to establish when Stonehenge was used as a burial space. With new techniques available for dating cremated human bone (Lanting et al. 2001) and improved methods of analysis for cremated bones

24 ae fteceain aeldt naedeto tnhnesoealsequence overall Stonehenge’s of amendment an and to contexts led the Furthermore, have people. cremations use. neglected of the these of study to dates moment opportune an MKne oet 93 Mays 1993; Roberts & (McKinley Cleal (from spots black are as bluestones marked the bone black; human in of (both bluestones ﬁnds the with perimeter), sarsens, (outer the Holes and Aubrey the stones) showing smaller Stonehenge, the of Plan 2. Figure Fgr ) h rmto uilwti uryHl 2i h n ntnei which in of instance records Hawley’s one bones pits. the these cremated is within contained depositions 32 have primary Hole be eight Aubrey to but likely within all are burial remains excavated, human cremation far The so 2). Holes (Figure Aubrey 34 the Of Cremations Heritage). English of copyright iePre Pearson Parker Mike tal et 02 rcly&MKne 04 hsis this 2004) McKinley & Brickley 2002; . 25 tal. et tal et 95 iue250; Figure 1995: .

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge?

Table 1. The structural sequence at Stonehenge, comparing the conventional and proposed schemes. Existing scheme (Cleal et al. 1995) 3015–2935 cal BC Phase 1 Ditch, bank & poss. Aubrey Holes c. 2900–2400 cal BC Phase 2 Timber posts, cremation burials c. 2550–2400 cal BC Phase 3i Bluestone arc 2440–2100 cal BC Phase 3ii Sarsen trilithons & circle c. 2300–2000 cal BC Phase 3iii Features on west side of stone circle 2270–2020 cal BC Phase 3iv Bluestones re-arranged in central oval 2210–1930 cal BC Phase 3v Bluestones re-arranged in central horseshoe 2020–1740 cal BC Phase 3vi Z Holes 1630–1520 cal BC ”YHoles Revised scheme (this paper & Parker Pearson et al. 2007) 3015–2935 cal BC Stage 1 Bluestones in Aubrey Holes, henge ditch & bank, timber posts, cremation burials c. 2900–2600 cal BC Stage 2 Bluestones re-arranged in an arc, with timber passageway, timber post arc and large house/hall on south side, cremation burials 2580–2470 cal BC Stage 3 Sarsen circle & trilithons, banked & ditched avenue, timber posts, Station Stones, Heel Stone, Slaughter Stones (bluestones presumably re-arranged among sarsens), cremation burials 2450–2210 cal BC Stage 4 Large pit in centre of Stonehenge, features on west side of stone circle, ‘Stonehenge Archer’ burial 2270–2020 cal BC Stage 5 Bluestones re-arranged in central oval 2210–1930 cal BC Stage 6 Bluestones re-arranged in central horseshoe 2020–1740 cal BC Stage 7 Z Holes 1630–1520 cal BC Stage 8 Y Holes

these pits are sketchy at best (Hawley 1921 and unpublished archive). Nonetheless, it is possible to gain some understanding of the stratigraphic positions of cremation deposits within at least some of the Aubrey Holes. Reviewing his descriptions and section drawings, it is possible to establish the positions of some of these deposits within the ﬁlls of the pits (see below). Samples from three cremation burials produced radiocarbon dates within the third millennium cal BC but at different periods within it (Table 2 and Figure 3). The earliest date comes from the cremated remains of an adult from Atkinson’s 1950 excavation of Aubrey Hole 32 (Figure 4, layer 4 [context 3008]; Cleal et al. 1995: 101), and dating to 3030–2880 cal BC (94% probability; OxA-18036 ; 4332 −+ 35 BP). The two other dated cremation deposits were excavated in 1954 by Atkinson from the ﬁlls of the ditch to the west of Stonehenge’s north-east entrance (within Cutting 41 [context 3893] and 42 [context 3898]). The earlier of these (from Cutting 41), of a young/mature adult, dates to 2920– 2870 cal BC (OxA-17957; 4271 −+ 29 BP). The later cremation deposit (from Cutting 42), that of an adult woman aged about 25 years, dates to 2570–2400 cal BC (OxA- 17958; 3961 −+ 29 BP), estimated as 2470–2300 cal BC (95% probability). This is likely

26 2007). ( trilithons and 5) Figure oto tnhnessriigubrtaddsriuae ua oe r from establish to are was these bones of selection human a dating disarticulated of and aim The unburnt contexts. disturbed surviving or unstratified Stonehenge’s of Most bones unburnt and Inhumations ( circle sarsen the of construction the than later be to Stonehenge. from dates radiocarbon New 3. Figure hwn h ae 4 nwihteradiocarbon-dated the which 32, in Hole Cleal (from (4) found Aubrey were remains cremated layer through the section showing Atkinson’s 4. Figure 5 oyih fEgihHeritage). English of copyright 55; 6020 a BC cal 2600–2400 tal et 95 Figure 1995: . iePre Pearson Parker Mike ; 27 5 probability 95% h rtmlenu a D(al and 2 (Table 3). AD Figure cal of millennium half first second the the second and teeth early BC the cal and millennium between bones to date human selected stray seven the iceidctsta emthsft in fate Pitts 300– his 2001: 22; met (Pitts period he post-Roman a the that of sarsen indicates the skeleton circle within cal dated buried man millennium recently decapitated third The the BC. within stages use principal of three contemporary Stonehenge’s were them with of any whether tal. et 5027 a BC cal 2580–2470 tal et iue5 akrPearson Parker 5; Figure ; 02,adfieotof out five and 2002), . ; 5 probability 95% tal et . ;

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge? ) (atomic) (95% confidence) ‰ N( 15 δ C C:N Calibrated date range )diet 19.1 9.3 3.2 cal AD 770–950 19.5 11.0 3.2 cal AD 680–880 21.8 9.921.9 3.4 10.4 2890–2620 cal BC 3.4 2880–2570 cal BC 20.2 10.920.520.8 3.320.5 8.9 cal AD 10.5 340–510 6.4 3.3 3.3 520–390 cal BC 1880–1680 3.3 cal BC 2580–2460 cal BC 13 δ − − − − − − − − ‰ C( 14 C ) 18.6 17.020.319.2 3080–2890 cal BC 2920–2870 cal BC 2570–2400 cal BC 21.8 21.9 20.3 20.3 20.5 20.5 13 19.23 δ − − − − − − − − − − ‰ − ( 25 25 35 29 29 31 31 27 28 30 31 + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − 1181 Radiocarbon C58 (3543) Stonehole 27 upper fill Eastern area C7 (1815) 1236 Ditch fill C25 (1560) 4169 Ditch fill C19 (1282) 1646 premolar premolar st nd of upper left 1 4 fragments from the same context, apparently from one parietal 2 conjoining fragments (only one sampled) of lower left 2 Table 2. New radiocarbon dates from Stonehenge. OxA-V-2232-35 Human dentine from root OxA-18036 Human bone cremated Aubrey Hole 32 (3008) 4332 OxA-17957OxA-17958 HumanOxA-V-2232-46 bone cremated Human skull fragment. Human 1 bone of cremated Ditch fill C41 (3898) Ditch fill C42 (3893) 4271 3961 OxA-V-2232-47 Human skullOxA-V-2232-48 Human skull fragment. 1 of Ditch fill C28 (2589) 4127 OxA-V-2232-49 Human skullOxA-V-2232-50 Human adult ulnaOxA-V-2232-51 Pig rib fragmentOxA-V-2232-34 Human dentine from root Ditch fill C21 Ditch (1384) fill C42 (3896) Posthole C8 1884 (1885) 3436 3977 2379 Lab No Material Context Age (BP)

28 -hpddth(iue6.Ti sms lal iil ntedaigo eto within A Section of drawing the in visible clearly most is This 6). (Figure ditch U-shaped al et δ (OxA-V-2232-46; BC cal were 2890–2620 to burials date inhumation fragments when skull period two 4169 The a Britain. 2, in Stage rare Stonehenge’s very during BC cal millennium eaae ySoeeg’ ot-atetac,bttersaitclycnitn radiocarbon consistent statistically (T’ their and determinations but apart 60m entrance, least north-east at Stonehenge’s ditch, the by of separated segments different from came fragments The 28). Cutting lt ,Fgr ;cprgto h oit fAtqaisof Antiquaries of 1922; Society Hawley the NW (from of London). the copyright the fill 2; from Figure ditch on introduced 8, upper Plate fill chalk the dark clean within and its [right]) the [left] 14, (with side or of re-cut 13 SE U-shaped west) segment the in (looking (NW-SE) showing section photograph ditch Hawley’s Stonehenge 5. Figure BC cal 2570–2400 of ditch Stonehenge’s within cremation 3961 uppermost (OxA-17958; the of date ditch late perimeter The the – sequence Stonehenge the for Implications vrokd h ic’ pe l a enasge otefis afo h hr millennium third the Cleal of in half first 2a the (Phase to BC assigned cal been had fill upper ditch’s The overlooked. MKne 95 al 9,bti ol o elctdi h olcin n oapgrib 1923 pig in a so Hawley and by collections 2). excavated the (Table in dating circle, for located sarsen selected be was the not context could of this it from side but south-east 59), Table the 1995: (McKinley on 8) Cutting in individual. C(x--224;4127 (OxA-V-2232-47; BC 13 w rget fhmnsul oee,aefo niiul h idi h al third early the in died who individuals from are however, skull, human of fragments Two ua i a on ihaia oe ntefil(otx 85 fapshl (1884 posthole a of 1885) (context fill the in bones animal with found was rib human A Cand 95 3 5 iue 8ad6)rvasta h pe l a ectb shallow a by re-cut was fill upper the that reveals 60) and 58 Figures 75, 73, 1995: . − + 1B;sbauto dl rmcnet16 nCtig2)adt 8027 cal 2880–2570 to and 25) Cutting in 1560 context from adult or sub-adult BP; 31 δ 15 stp ausrietepsiiiyta hydrv rmoeadtesame the and one from derive they that possibility the raise values isotope N = − + 0.9; 9B)hglgt tairpi rbe hc a ihrobeen hitherto has which problem stratigraphic a highlights BP) 29 ν tal et − + = 1B;odrmtr dl rodrautfo otx 59in 2589 context from adult older or adult mature older BP; 31 95 1–2 n e n ftesxdtddisarticulated dated six the of one yet and 118–22) 1995: . ;T’(5%) 1; iePre Pearson Parker Mike = .;Wr isn17)adnear-identical and 1978) Wilson & Ward 3.8; 29 1ad4)ecvtdb tisnadre- Cleal 1984; and (Evans Evans John Atkinson by by excavated (Cuttings excavated sections 42) and ditch 41 the of drawings are bones single residual. other fill these ditch’s the that of indicate metre top OxA- the than from 4880, other bones, disarticulated on al et 4 3;Bayliss 133; 84, aeo riuae iltbnsof a BC cal bones by 2670 piglet confirmed articulated as on accumulated sequence, date the ditch in the early of lowest fills The ditch. secondary the of layers upper the of BC cal 3875 a quem provides the surface, below metre ground a over from bones, animal lsrlo ttepoorpsand photographs the at look closer A 97 5)bttesmlryerydates early similarly the but 252) 1997: . tal. et − + f26-10clB (OxA-4880; BC cal 2560-2140 of ( 5B) siae as estimated BP), 55 4 probability 94% ( OxA-5981 tal et 97 al ;Hedges 1; Table 1997: . ,frtein-filling the for ), ;Cleal emnspost terminus 2490–2190 tal et 1995: . 2910–

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge?

Figure 6. Atkinson’s section drawing of the Stonehenge ditch (Section A within Cutting 41), showing the U-shaped re-cut within the upper ditch ﬁll from layer 3082 upwards (from Cleal et al. 1995: Figure 38; copyright of English Heritage).

Cutting 41 (Cleal et al. 1995: 75, Figure 60) which shows that the later ditch was slightly wider than the original 1.6m-deep, flat-bottomed ditch. The re-cut ditch’s primary fill of coarse rubble can be seen at 0.6m above this flat bottom (on the south-west side of the ditch), cutting through the secondary fill of fine rubble within the original ditch fill (Figure 6; we argue that contexts 3072–4 above this coarse rubble are fills of the re-cut ditch). Similar evidence of a U-profile re-cut (Figure 5) can be found in all of Hawley’s photographs of ditch sections that he excavated around the eastern circuit (Hawley 1922: Plate 8, Figures 1 and 2; 1923: Plate 4, Figure 2, Plate 5, Figure 2; Cleal et al. 1995: Figures 40, 42-43, 61-64). There is no dating evidence from these to indicate when this re-cutting occurred but, on the assumption that the ditch was re-cut symmetrically either side of the north-east entrance, it would be logical to interpret these other re-cuts as part of the same operation. Perhaps this re- digging of the ditch was done to enhance the monument’s appearance once the sarsens were erected and/or to demarcate its interior space more clearly. Since the animal bone (dated by OxA-4880) was in the lower fill of the re-cut ditch, this re-cutting has to date to within or after 2560–2340 cal BC (95% probability) and prior to the Stonehenge Archer’s burial (2340– 2195 cal BC [95% probability]). It was thus carried out in the period of the sarsen circle and trilithons. The recognition of this episode of re-cutting clarifies some key problems concerning the ditch stratigraphy. Hawley recorded layers of coarse rubble and clean, compacted chalk in the upper fill of the ditch around most of its eastern circuit, forming an ‘earthy chalk rubble layer over the silt’ (Hawley 1922: 51; Cleal et al. 1995: 118-22, Table 12). He interpreted these as deriving from ‘the movement of the numerous big stones and of many people, and the generally disturbed state of the ground’ (Hawley 1922: 50-1). This interpretation of large-scale backfilling of the ditch was followed both by Atkinson (1979: 72-4) and by Cleal et al. who considered that this was a distinct event of backfilling (1995: 118). The chalk in the upper fills of the re-cuts is much cleaner

30 farctigeetivldtspirblesaottelnt ftm httedthto to took ditch the that time of length the about of the beliefs burial in. within prior fill the considered invalidates (Bayliss of event when infilling recutting and (OxA-4880) estimates a ditch event as BC of the this refined cal of of be 2560–2140 model dating can of statistical The woman date existing fill. old the ditch 25-year of re-cut cremated end the the earlier centuries within the and bone decades is animal the This in for BC. re-cutting, ditch’ the cal after the 2560 rampart deposited the of after been of have out slope to interior cast considered the be on soil now also by found being formed their was from and which silt the in burial partial their shvn enctfo h o ftesl hog h pe ic ls(aly12:157; 1928: (Hawley fills ditch upper the through silt the of top Cleal the from cut been having as n eeoie sfamnso rmtdbn ctee ihntecakfilo h re-cut the of fill chalk the within scattered re-cutting bone the cremated by filled (Cleal disturbed of ditch been fragments the have as may as by radiocarbon-dated, redeposited centuries yet buried few and not been next these, the having of in some dating, deposited and radiocarbon were up More for 1935). available in not Newall was & Young this 85; 2001: Ruggles & 3 encircling circle its the when digging use of of phase period first the Stonehenge’s places of period 32 the Hole been within has Aubrey sequence Holes from Stonehenge Aubrey the date of within new Holes Aubrey The the uncertain. of assignment the now, Until Holes Aubrey The the of floor (Cleal the digging-out onto directly its placed after been shortly have to ditch appears deposit cremation one active Only at ditch. re-cut hint the in indeed fill and does bank and the level fills to attempt secondary an ditch’s ditch. from re-cut perhaps chalk, a clean in of incorporation expected be would than iue7 ceai epaigo aeswti the within layers of (1 re-phasing ditch Schematic Stonehenge 7. Figure .Dover). M. 2 = = hspoie hoooia rmwr o h rmtosfudwti h enclosure the within found cremations the for framework chronological a provides This l fr-u)adteAbe oe (1 Holes Aubrey the and re-cut) of fill eodr l;3 fill; secondary tal et tal et 95 154). 1995: . 95 2) h aoiyo rmtoswti h ic eentdb Hawley by noted were ditch the within cremations of majority The 124). 1995: . = = neto nofildpt SP2008 (SRP pit) filled into insertion aeo ic;2 ditch; of base Ta hywr nerdltrta h aeo h ic seietfrom evident is ditch the of date the than later interred were they ‘That = oe ic fill; ditch lower = iePre Pearson Parker Mike rmr fill; primary tal et 31 95 2 iue4,cnet16;Pollard 1269; context 42, Figure 82, 1995: . Hwe 98 5) sarsl,teecan these result, a As 157). 1928: (Hawley ih aewti h vrl Stonehenge overall sequence. the within fills Hole date Aubrey model might particular provisional these from buri- a als cremation when suggest as to Stonehenge 7) applied (Figure the be in sequence can three-part found This above). (see been ditch contexts has (re-cut) primary,as tertiary and between secondary distinction same the threefold using in-filling their to re-examine however, useful, be may the It Holes. within Aubrey dating 2007). stratigraphic no Pearson is There Parker counterscarp & and ditch (Chamberlain bank, spacing circle, regular pit of the and of evidence concentricity the shared fits this dug; was ditch tal. et tal et 97 2 u h recognition the but 52) 1997: .

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge?

Having just excavated the Aubrey Holes, Hawley stated that ‘there can be little doubt that they once held small upright stones’, noting the compaction and crushing of basal chalk rubble in two of them and crushing of the sides in many of them (Hawley 1921: 30–1). However, he changed his mind some years later when he visited Maud Cunnington’s excavations at Woodhenge. He wrote that the postholes there ‘correspond exactly to the original conditions of the Aubrey holes’ (1928: 156). Hawley’s unfortunate revision has led to lengthy and unresolved discussion on whether the Aubrey Holes, severally or universally, held posts or even stakes inserted into their fills (Atkinson 1956: 13; Pitts 1982: 127, 2001: 108–9; Cleal et al. 1995: 102–7; Pollard & Ruggles 2001: 75; Burl 2006: 119–20). Atkinson excavated two Aubrey Holes in 1950 and considered that these and therefore the others were simply pits (1979: 172). He in turn discounted their interpretation as stone-holes even though the hard, compact primary fills (layers 6, 7 and 4; see Figure 4) that he encountered within Hole 32 are consistent with its use as a stone-hole. Whilst layer 5 (in Figure 4) might appear initially as the fill of a postpipe, it is better interpreted as the fill of a hole from which the standing stone has been removed from the left side (Atkinson’s section drawing has no co-ordinates of any kind), causing crushing of the pit’s edge on the left side and displacement of the primary packing fills (layers 4, 6 and 7) on the left side so that they were pushed downwards to the base of the pit. Our own recent experience of excavating postholes at Durrington Walls and Woodhenge highlights how unlikely it is that the Aubrey Holes ever held posts (Pollard & Robinson 2007; Thomas 2007). A comparison of the Aubrey Holes’ dimensions with equivalent-diameter postholes at Woodhenge and the Southern Circle at Durrington Walls (Cunnington 1929: 33–5; Wainwright with Longworth 1971: 380–1) illustrates this difference (Figure 8). It is important to note that the profiles, depths and diameters of the Aubrey Holes (averaging 1.10m in maximum diameter and 0.88m deep; Cleal et al. 1995: Table 10, Figures 51–5) are indistinguishable from those of known bluestone sockets of later phases (averaging 1.12m in maximum diameter and 0.96m deep; ibid.: Figures 118, 120, 122, 131, 140). These known bluestone sockets include the single sockets of the bluestone arc’s paired Q and R holes. Within this interpretive perspective, the cremation burial excavated by Atkinson in Aubrey Hole 32 is located within the chalk packing for a standing stone, thus being part of the primary fill of the pit. There is thus a strong case to be made for the Aubrey Holes having held stones. They must have been bluestones because all the Stonehenge sarsens are larger, and they must have been erected in their undressed state since no chippings can be identified from this earliest phase in the ditch. This re-interpretation of the Aubrey Holes puts the arrival of at least 56 bluestones at Stonehenge at the beginning of the third millennium cal BC, rather than in the mid-third millennium cal BC. Where did the bluestones go after their removal from the Aubrey Holes? The only known bluestone sockets elsewhere at Stonehenge where they may have been re-erected are those of the bluestone arc (known as the Q and R holes). This re-location from the Aubrey Holes to the bluestone arc may have occurred at any point between the twenty-ninth and twenty-sixth centuries cal BC. The date of the cremation burial in Aubrey Hole 32 makes it likely that

32 r w klsfo h al eodmlenu,adatbafo h rnAe(iue10; (Figure Age Iron the from tibia a and millennium, second 3). early Table the into from dug skulls Pearson pit Parker two a 133; are from 2007: third-millennium and Pearson; early (Parker avenue its house from from ruined remains bones a human disarticulated three only are seen the Walls now Durrington contrast, but BC In 38–41) building. 1971: hall-sized Longworth a with (Wainwright as Circle, midden structure, Southern the a roofed of as north interpreted a located Walls initially large Durrington the (11m of at with larger shape building floor and far terraced size and in been the post-walled closely have compares but to indeed Walls Durrington appears at was it houses domestic plan ‘floor’ the In Hawley’s hearth. that a without likely presumably very becomes Pearson composition Parker it this 2007; of Pearson floors (Parker house appearance revealed have and Walls Durrington nearby at Excavations 15). clay’ with mixed and fine beaten ihntesuhpr fSoeeg,tesuhr tto tn stwti h ot Bar- South the into within set (set been Stone have Station to southern appears the row) Stonehenge, of part south the Within Barrow South the at Sequence by cut were arc bluestone the of holes The BC. in cal erected 2890 circle, by sarsen probably the place in was stone its depth as (measured Walls Walls Durrington Durrington for diameters. and except maximum B level are Ring ground Widths recorded Woodhenge from chalk). from bluestone measured natural 3iv diameter are below Phase depths similar Holes, All R of 2B. and postholes Ring (Q Stonehenge Circle and from Southern pits, sockets bluestone I other Site and Holes Dorchester-on-Thames Aubrey excavated holes), of sizes Pit 8. Figure 5027 a BC cal 2580–2470 hc a oee ytebro on Hwe 93 14– 1923: (Hawley mound barrow the by covered was which iePre Pearson Parker Mike alvlflo aeo elwsbtnersmln chalk resembling substance yellow a of made . . . floor level ‘a 33 . tal. et tal et 07.Gvnti comparison, this Given 2007). . tal. et 07 3) lhuhthere although 633), 2007: × 0)than 10m)

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge?

The house floor under the South Barrow lies inside the south entrance through Stonehenge’s encircling ditch, on the west side of the access route from this entrance to the post-lined avenue known as the southern ‘passageway’ leading to a post façade (Cleal et al. 1995: 150–2). It may thus have been a significant staging point or gathering place for people entering or exiting the monument by its southern entrance. The floor seals Aubrey Holes 17-19 (Phase 1) and must post-date them. Any stones within the Aubrey Holes would have been removed by the time that this floor was laid. The South Barrow house and southern ‘passageway’ may well have been contemporary with the arc of bluestones in the Q and R holes. The house floor was buried by the fill of the South Barrow and was apparently cut by the southern Station Stone. This Station Stone (and presumably the three others) are thus likely to date to the period when the bluestone arc or the later sarsen circle and trilithons were erected. Since this Station Stone is later than the Aubrey Holes, Newham’s claim for significant sightlines between these Station Stones and the Early Mesolithic postholes (Allen in Cleal et al. 1995) as contemporaneous structures (Newham n.d.) can be refuted.

Discussion: the origins of Stonehenge We can now offer a new model for the initial stages of Stonehenge. It was a cremation cemetery demarcated by a bluestone circle, later dismantled to leave the Aubrey Holes. The cemetery was in use from the early third millennium BC. Fourteen similar burial-associated monuments are known from elsewhere in Britain, likely or known to date to the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third millennium cal BC (Figure 9). The closest parallel to Stonehenge Stage 1 is, interestingly, in North Wales, about 75 miles (120km) north of the Preseli source of the bluestones. Figure 9. Distribution of late fourth/early third-millennia This is Llandegai henge A, Gwynedd, BC pit-circle cremation monuments and related sites (Duggleby Howe, Priddy Circles, West Stow, Monkton Up in which a circular ditch with internal Wimborne and Flagstones, Dorchester) in Britain. bank enclosed the cremation burial of an adult woman dating to 3370–2930 cal BC (GrA-22954; 4480 −+ 50 BP; Lynch & Musson 2004: 44–6, 118). Further cremations were buried within a sub-circular arrangement of elongated pits outside the enclosure’s entrance, at least eight of which contained cremated bones (ibid.: 48–54). Terminus post quem dates from charred planks within the pits date to 3640–2870 cal BC (NPL-224;

34 4480 Walls. Durrington from remains human on dates radiocarbon New 10. Figure Walls. Durrington from remains human on dates radiocarbon New 3. Table GN287 4320 (GrN-26817; r oae ncoepoiiyt ussso iermnmns n tnhnei no is which Stonehenge in and period the monuments, after third centuries (Thomas linear some to constructed to or date mostly fourth to were cursuses appear cursuses the sites to burial of the proximity of turn Most close exception. the in at located period are Lee demonstrated. this be with to to (Harding remains date later, remains than these rather funerary BC, of funerary with cal the any millennium associated within whether not later and but are added burial, 1987) circles were founding first, secondary pit as a clearly Many with constructed were association sequence. were which in they process cremations that funerary those likely lengthy that a is the of it been stage Yet have first not construction. the might their rites behind funerary purpose that glance principal first at suggesting monuments, pit-circle x--224 ua oe otoe7 3515 79 Posthole bone; Human OxA-V-2232-43 x--224 ua oe otoe7 3474 79 Posthole bone; Human OxA-V-2232-44 a oMtra otx g (BP) Age Context Material No Lab x--224 ua oe ae f2246 of 8 Layer bone; Human OxA-V-2232-45 x--224 ua bone; Human OxA-V-2232-41 x--224 ua bone; Human OxA-V-2232-42 neetnl,alo h xmlsecp arppl,Dglb oeadPid circles Priddy and Howe Duggleby Cairnpapple, except examples the of all Interestingly, these within relationships secondary in placed generally were deposits Cremation − + 4 P,33–90clB GN288 4420 (GrN-26818; BC cal 3330–2910 BP), 145 kl SCircle) (S skull kl SCircle) (S skull ii eg ditch henge tibia male mandible? female occipital? − + 0BP; 30 13)4023 (1034) 61 4032 (641) ibid :119). .: iePre Pearson Parker Mike aicro ( Radiocarbon − + − + − + − + − + tal et 29 29 28 30 30 35 hsvlm)admn r soitdwith associated are many and volume) this . − − − − − δ 14 ‰ 13 21.4 21.3 20.4 21.2 21.9 Cdiet C )( tal. et − − − − − δ ‰ 13 171. . 9014 a BC cal 1930–1740 3.3 10.0 21.7 151. . 8019 a BC cal 1890–1690 3.3 10.1 21.5 0686334020clBC cal 400–200 3.3 8.6 20.6 141. . 8027 a BC cal 2830–2470 3.3 11.3 21.4 21983222–40clBC cal 2620–2470 3.2 9.8 22.1 airtddate Calibrated C − + : ag (95% range C:N ) 0B)ad32–80clBC cal 3020–2890 and BP) 40 δ 15 N( ‰ aoi)confidence) (atomic) )

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge?

Table 4. Estimated numbers of cremation deposits at Stonehenge through time, converted to a modelled mortality profile. Date (centuries cal BC) 30th 29th-27th 26th-24th 30th-24th New scheme stages 12 31-3 Cleal et al. scheme phases 12&3i3ii 1-3ii Aubrey Hole cremations 21012 24 Ditch cremations 1 2 15 18 TOTAL BURIALS 3 12 27 42 Estimated burials per phase (150 total) 10 42 92 144 Estimated burials per phase (240 total) 17 66 150 233 Estimated burials per century (150 total) 10 14 31 55 Estimated burials per century (240 total) 17 22 50 89 the introduction of geometrically precise architecture, which Harding has interpreted as marking a period of religious change (2003). The small sample available has shown that there was a minimum number of two cremated individuals buried in Stonehenge’s first century of use (Table 4), rather more during the next three centuries (about 12), with most cremation interments (about 27) taking place in the three centuries of the sarsen-building phase up to c. 2400 cal BC, culminating with a single inhumation in the twenty-third/twenty-second century cal BC. All of the burials estimated for the monument’s first century could have been generated by the natural deaths occurring within a single nuclear family but, by the latest phases, the deaths would have to derive from an extended family or from a sub-section of a large lineage. The population buried at Stonehenge might well derive from a single dynasty over seven centuries. This raises the question of whether they were, indeed, a ruling elite (Renfrew 1973; Hayden 2003: 246–7; Fleming 2004). The few grave goods are definitely unusual, notably a gneiss macehead (Montague & Gardiner 1995: 394) and a disc-shaped ‘ceramic object’ (Cleal 1995: 360–1), and their specialised nature has been commented upon before (Bradley 1991: 215). In the case of the skewer pins from some of the Stonehenge cremation burials (Montague 1995: 409–10), it is interesting that, among the many pins from Durrington Walls (Wainwright with Longworth 1971: 181–3; and many more found in 2004–2007), none is of this type even though the skewer pin from a cremation burial in the upper fill of the Stonehenge ditch (Cleal et al. 1995: Table 43, object 9) is likely to be contemporary with the Durrington Walls settlement. A preliminary estimate of the demography of the Stonehenge cemetery thus provides figures that are consistent with it having been the burial ground of a single family. This raises the possibility that it was the burial ground of a ruling elite family, perhaps even of Cambrian origin, whose hereditary hold on power is revealed to us by their increasingly dramatic manipulations of workforces moving large stones. Recovery of the cremated bones from Aubrey Hole 7 in August 2008 can now allow this demographic and social model to be more fully evaluated.

Conclusion The quality of most excavations at Stonehenge during the twentieth century was very poor, particularly those carried out by Richard Atkinson who kept few records of the trenches

36 B –1979. A B B References editing his for Ellis-Sch Carver Jane to Martin due and Mike are paper, dates, thanks this and Especial on version. material comments longer dated much their on a for comments from Woodward their Ann for and Serjeantson Sheridan Dale Alison and Pitts, Bayliss Alex Allen, Mike thank We in possible as far as salvaged (Cleal team been her has and work Cleal The Rosamund 1970s. by publication and exemplary 1950s an the between dug he rdcdwt emsino nls eiae n iue6b emsino h oit fAtqaisof Antiquaries of were Society 5 the and of 4 7 2, permission Figure Figures by Marshall. Pearson. Peter 6 Parker by Figure Mike produced and by were Heritage, produced 2 were and English London. 9 1 of Tables and permission and 8 9 with Figures and Dover. produced 2 Mark Figures by Luis. Figure drawn notes. de excavation was Irene Hawley’s of by copies drawn providing for was and 1 sampling, isotopic and radiocarbon permitting for Acknowledgements Cleal 3, Stage millennium. a (our half erected least of Cleal were circle 2, trilithons Stage outer and (our circle This construction bluestones sarsen 1). of 3ii). of the (Table Phase stage arc BC. which bluestones ﬁrst inner cal after Welsh the the millennium 3i), by to contained third replaced belong they was Holes the that bluestones Aubrey throughout the propose 56 in such we the conjectured as and scheme is new continued as this and monument, cemetery Within cremation beginning a timber and sequence. monument its and stone Stonehenge a earth from was Stonehenge the simple that argue a of we models, as existing revision starting further than a Rather support respectively; excavations, 3ii twentieth-century Phase and 3i (Phase sarsens and bluestones cremation and the structures to seeFigure2andTable1). timber prior and 2) 1, Phase Phase as being sarsens burials Holes to Aubrey possibly bluestones and to bank Cleal Holes, ditch, by Aubrey amended was from which Stonehenge 1956), of (Atkinson model three-stage a proposed TKINSON RICKLEY RADLEY AYLISS tnhnewstu one sahg ttsbra rudadcniuda uhfrat for such as continued and ground burial status high a as founded thus was Stonehenge the of re-appraisal a with together here, presented Stonehenge for dates new The Penguin. Hamilton. Southampton. of University Archaeology, of Department BABAO, Southampton: 7). Paper Technical Remains Human Recording for Standards Archaeology xodUiest Press. Oxford: University 39–59. Oxford 92): Academy British the of B. & (ed.) Renfrew Cunliffe C. in Stonehenge, Dating 1997. . .B C. A., , Stonehenge .19.Rta,tm n history. and time Ritual, 1991. R. , .&JI M J.I. & M. , ...1956. R.J.C. , 3 209–19. 23: OKRAMSEY RONK cec n Stonehenge and Science tideiin.Harmondsworth: edition). (third C K Stonehenge INLEY &F.G.M 2004. . odn Hamish London: . udlnst the to Guidelines C (Proceedings C iePre Pearson Parker Mike ORMAC (IFA World . 37 tal et B C C URL LEAL HAMBERLAIN Heritage. excavations twentieth-century landscape: (ed.) its Montague in R. Stonehenge & Walker K.E. Cleal, R.M.J. raetsoecircle stone greatest eis19) 6–4 xod Archaeopress. Oxford: 169–74. 1692): Series millennium BC third the in with diversity living cultural Baltic: (ed.) the Pearson to Parker Stonehenge M. From & Larsson M. southern in Neolithic Britain, Late in measurement of Units .2006. A. , hi oe rsne w hss(the phases two presented model their : ...19.Erirpeitrcptey in pottery, prehistoric Earlier 1995. R.M.J. , tal. et BiihAcaooia eot International Reports Archaeological (British no aibr ot ithr Museum Wiltshire South & Salisbury of on ¨ ,A.&M.P 4–7 odn English London: 349–67. : tnhne e itr fteworld’s the of history new a Stonehenge: odn Constable. London: . ARKER tal et 95.Atkinson 1995). . P EARSON tal et 2007. . ’ Phase .’s tal et .’s

Research Who was buried at Stonehenge?

CLEAL, R.N.J., K.E. WALKER &R.MONTAGUE. 1995. MCKINLEY, J.I. & C.A. ROBERTS. 1993. Excavation Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century and post-excavation treatment of cremated and excavations. London: English Heritage. inhumed human remains (IFA Technical CUNNINGTON, M.E. 1929. Woodhenge. Devizes: Paper 13). Birmingham: Institute of Field Simpson. Archaeologists. EVANS, J.G. 1984. Stonehenge – the environment in the MONTAGUE, R. 1995. Bone and antler small objects, in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and a R.M.J. Cleal, K.E. Walker & R. Montague (ed.) Beaker-Age burial. Wiltshire Archaeological and Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century Natural History Magazine 78: 7–30. excavations: 407–14. London: English Heritage. FLEMING, A. 2004. Hail to the chiefdom? The quest for social archaeology, in J. Cherry, C. Scarre & S. MONTAGUE,R.&J.GARDINER. 1995. Other stone, in Shennan (ed.) Explaining social change: studies in R.M.J. Cleal, K.E. Walker & R. Montague (ed.) honour of Colin Renfrew: 141–7. Cambridge: Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century McDonald Institute for Archaeological excavations: 390–99. London: English Research. Heritage. HARDING, A.F. with G.E. LEE. 1987. Henge monuments NEWHAM, C.A. n.d. The three car park post holes. and related sites of Great Britain: air photographic Unpublished manuscript. evidence and catalogue (British Archaeological PARKER PEARSON, M. 2007. The Stonehenge Riverside Reports British Series 175). Oxford: British Project: excavations at the east entrance of Archaeological Reports. Durrington Walls, in M. Larsson & M. Parker HARDING, J. 2003. Henge monuments of the British Isles. Pearson (ed.) From Stonehenge to the Baltic: living Stroud: Tempus. with cultural diversity in the third millennium BC (British Archaeological Reports International Series HAWLEY, W. 1921. The excavations at Stonehenge. The 1692): 125–44. Oxford: Archaeopress. Antiquaries Journal 1: 19–39. PARKER PEARSON,M.,R.CLEAL,P.MARSHALL,S. –1922. Second report on the excavations at Stonehenge. NEEDHAM,J.POLLARD,C.RICHARDS,C.RUGGLES, The Antiquaries Journal 2: 36–51. A. SHERIDAN,J.THOMAS,C.TILLEY,K.WELHAM, –1923. Third report of the excavations at Stonehenge A. CHAMBERLAIN,C.CHENERY,J.EVANS,C. during the season of 1923. The Antiquaries Journal KNUSEL¨ ,N.LINFORD,L.MARTIN,J. 3: 1-20. MONTGOMERY,A.PAYNE &M.RICHARDS. 2007. –1928. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during The age of Stonehenge. Antiquity 81: 617–39. 1925 and 1926. The Antiquaries Journal 8: PITTS, M. 1982. On the road to Stonehenge: report on 149–76. investigations beside the A344 in 1968, 1979 and HAYDEN, B. 2003. Shamans, sorcerers and saints: a 1980. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48: prehistory of religion. Washington D.C: Smithsonian 75–132. Books. –2001. Hengeworld (second edition). London: Arrow HEDGES, R.E.M., P.B. PETTITT,C.BRONK RAMSEY & Books. G.J. VAN KLINKEN. 1997. Radiocarbon dates from PITTS, M., A. BAYLISS,J.MCKINLEY,A.BOYLSTON,P. the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 23. BUDD,J.EVANS,C.CHENERY,A.REYNOLDS &S. Archaeometry 39(1): 247–62. SEMPLE. 2002. An Anglo-Saxon decapitation and LANTING, J.N., A.T. AERTS-BIJMA &J.VAN DER burial at Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological & PLICHT. 2001. Dating of cremated bones. Natural History Magazine 95: 131–46. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 249–54. POLLARD,J.&D.ROBINSON. 2007. A return to LYNCH,F.&C.MUSSON. 2004. A prehistoric and Woodhenge: the results and implications of the early medieval complex at Llandegai, near Bangor, 2006 excavations, in M. Larsson & M. Parker north Wales. Archaeologia Cambrensis 150: Pearson (ed.) From Stonehenge to the Baltic: living 17–142. with cultural diversity in the third millennium BC MAYS,S.,M.BRICKLEY &N.DODWELL. 2002. Human (British Archaeological Reports International Series bones from archaeological sites: guidelines for 1692): 159–68. Oxford: Archaeopress. producing assessment documents and analytical POLLARD,J.&C.RUGGLES. 2001. Shifting perceptions: reports. London: English Heritage/BABAO. spatial order, cosmology, and patterns of deposition MCKINLEY, J.I. 1995. Human bone, in R.M.J. at Stonehenge. Cambridge Archaeological Journal Cleal, K.E. Walker & R. Montague (ed.) 11: 69–90. Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century RENFREW, C. 1973. Monuments, mobilisation and excavations: 451–61. London: English social organisation in Neolithic Wessex, in C. Heritage. Renfrew (ed.) The Explanation of culture change: 539–58. London: Duckworth.

38 T T HOMAS HOMAS etr nlsrs20-,i .Lrsn&M. (ed.) & Pearson Larsson Parker M. in 2005-6, and Enclosures Circle Western Southern the in investigations Walls: eis19) 4–7 xod Archaeopress. Oxford: 145–57. 1692): Series millennium third the BC in diversity cultural with living oue.Tedt fteGetrStonehenge Greater Cursus. the of date The volume]. R ICHARDS BiihAcaooia eot International Reports Archaeological (British .. .P M. J.S., , Durrington at features internal The 2007. J.S. , Antiquity ,C.T ARKER ILLEY 3 40–53. 83: rmSoeeg oteBaltic: the to Stonehenge From &K.W P EARSON ELHAM ,J.P OLLARD 09[this 2009 . iePre Pearson Parker Mike ,C. 39 W W ARD AINWRIGHT eemntos critique. a determinations: age radiocarbon combining and comparing niure fLondon. of of Society Antiquaries London: 29). London of of Society Antiquaries the of Committee Research the 1966-1968 excavations Walls: Durrington ,G.K.&S.R.W tal. et ,G.J.withI.H.L ILSON 98 rcdrsfor Procedures 1978. . ONGWORTH Archaeometry 1971. . 0 19–31. 20: Rpr of (Report

Research